This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Michael E. Zobrak. Three employees filed grievances protesting the
Agency's refusal to grant them overtime compensation. The grievances were
consolidated and submitted to arbitration. The Arbitrator found that the Agency
had not violated law, regulation, or the parties' collective bargaining
agreement when it denied the grievants overtime compensation. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator denied the grievances, including the grievance of Grievant Gerbec,
who is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Union filed an exception under section 7122(a) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations to the award denying the grievance of
Grievant Gerbec. The Agency filed an opposition.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is
contrary to law or regulation. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

II. Background

Grievant Gerbec's grievance related to overtime compensation which was
disallowed for certain travel time during the period the grievant and another
employee conducted a respirable dust study at a mine. Under Agency regulations,
the mine became the grievant's temporary duty station during the time of the
dust study. During the period of the study, the grievant and the other employee
were lodged at a motel which was approximately 45 minutes' travel time from the
mine. The employees were provided with a Government vehicle in which to
travel.

On the mornings of August 1, 2, 5, and 6, 1985, the grievant drove the
vehicle from the motel to the mine. The other employee drove the vehicle from
the mine to the motel each afternoon, during which time the grievant was a
passenger and performed no work. Each morning, the employees transported
sampling equipment to the mine in their vehicle. Each afternoon, the equipment
was loaded into their vehicle and returned to the motel. The equipment was then
unloaded and cleaned at the motel and made ready for the next day's
sampling.

The grievant was compensated for all time spent at the mine. The
grievant was also compensated for all time spent loading, unloading, and
cleaning the sampling equipment. The grievant was not compensated for the time
spent as a passenger traveling in the vehicle from the mine to the motel in the
afternoon. The Agency denied compensation for this travel time as a passenger,
classifying the travel as being similar to commuting between the official duty
station and home.

The grievant filed a grievance protesting the Agency's refusal to
compensate him for the afternoon travel time between the mine and the motel.
The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the Agency
violated law, regulation, or the parties' collective bargaining agreement when
it denied the grievant overtime compensation for the afternoon travel time as a
passenger.

III. Arbitrator's Award

The Arbitrator reviewed the Fair Labor Standards Act and implementing
regulations and concluded that there was no provision authorizing compensation
to the grievant for travel time as a passenger in a vehicle between his
temporary duty station and his temporary lodging.

The Arbitrator rejected the claim that the grievant's travel time was
compensable under 29 C.F.R. § 785.38, which implements the FLSA with
respect to travel time. Section 785.38 provides that an employee who is
required to report to a meeting place to receive instructions or to pick up
tools must be compensated for the travel time from the designated meeting place
to the work place. The Arbitrator found that under Federal Personnel Manual
(FPM) Letter 551-11, the motel was the grievant's temporary lodging.
Consequently, the Arbitrator found that the grievant was not required to report
from the motel to a designated location to pick up tools or to receive
instructions.

The Arbitrator determined that the Agency had not violated law,
regulation, or the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it denied the
grievant overtime compensation. Therefore, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.

IV. Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that the award is contrary to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and implementing regulations. The Union maintains that contrary
to the Arbitrator's determination, the grievant's travel time was compensable
under 29 C.F.R. § 785.38.

The Agency contends that the Union's reliance on 29 C.F.R. § 785.38 is misplaced. The Agency maintains that this provision concerns travel
between job sites or between designated meeting places and job sites. The
Agency asserts that the Arbitrator correctly determined that the grievant was
not involved in such travel. Instead, the Agency contends that the grievant's
travel was between his work site and his lodging. The Agency argues, therefore,
that the travel is considered to be home-to-work and is not compensable.

V. Analysis and Conclusions

We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is
contrary to the FLSA and implementing regulations.

FPM Letter 551-11 states that an employee shall not be compensated for
normal home-to-work travel. The FPM Letter directs that the time spent by an
employee commuting between temporary lodging, such as a motel, and the
temporary duty station shall be considered home-to-work travel. The FPM Letter
further directs that home-to-work travel time shall not be considered working
time under the FLSA unless the travel meets one of the specified conditions
where home-to-work travel is compensable.

The only condition where travel time as a passenger is compensable is
the situation addressed by 29 C.F.R. § 785.38: the employee reports to a
designated meeting place to pick up tools or receive instructions and is
transported as a passenger by Government vehicle to a job site. See FPM
Letter 551-10, Table 1. When this condition is met, the meeting at the
designated location commences the employee's workday and all subsequent travel
is compensable. However, the travel between the designated meeting place and
lodging is normal home-to-work travel and is not compensable. Id.

The Arbitrator reviewed the FLSA and implementing regulations and
applied them to the grievant's disputed travel time. He concluded that there
was no provision authorizing compensation to the grievant for travel time as a
passenger in a vehicle between his temporary duty station and his temporary
lodging. The Arbitrator found that the grievant was not required to report to a
designated location to receive instructions or pick up tools so as to make his
travel time as a passenger compensable.

The Union fails to establish that the denial of compensation in these
circumstances is contrary to the FLSA or implementing regulations. Rather, the
Union merely disagrees with the Arbitrator's conclusions that the motel
constituted the grievant's temporary lodging and that there was no requirement
to report to a designated location so as to make the grievant's travel time as
a passenger compensable. Therefore, the Union's exception provides no basis for
finding the award deficient.